Is it their place to decide?

Question

Lately there has been a lot more focus on alternative energies and biofeuls and it seems the government (if slowly) is finally catching up with the trends.

Do you feel that it is the responsability of the US government to dictate which types of fuels should be commercialized or would our country be better off if the consumers were allowed to decide?

Answer 1

I think consumers need to be the deciding voice.  The government is run by politicians. These politicians receive donations from automakers and oil companies.  The auto makers don't want change because it would be expensive for them to make radical changes.  The oil companies don't want change because they want to sell oil.  It is possible to convert on your own.  Some friends of mine are currently touring the country in a schoolbus powered by used vegetable oil.  As they spread the word, more consumers will explore options like this.  Check out the progress at http://www.biotour.org

Answer 2

The government has a responsibility to make sure that the fuel is clean and safe.

When it comes to deciding the we should go to alternate fuels the market  is pushing the move more the the government.

There is more demand for alternate fuels and alternate fueled vehicles than there is supply.

Answer 3

no.

Answer 4

Consumers can't decide if they don't have a choice.

If they do, they'll go for the cheap one if it's good.

Hydrogen can be cheap, and it's good.

The government's job is to look out for the best interest of the people, and smog isn't in their best interest.

Hydrogen is the future, not biofuels. Biofuels are getting pushed by big business, including the agriculture sector because they can grow the corn for the fuels. But in the long run, they're not better because the fleets are getting bigger still.

But in the end, people want cheap, that's why this summer you will see people clamoring for hybrids.

Answer 5

Free market decisions are a lot better. Who needs more government intervention? Not me, I can't paint the bottom of my boat anymore. Its "illegal" to do it, I hate NYS

Answer 6

It's always better to let the consumer decide.

As the reknowned Larry Kudlow on CNBC states "Free Market Capatialism is the best path to prosperity"

And I have always agreed with that.  

However, when it comes to a nations energy security, or the environment, this no longer works.  The businesses are concerned about making a profit, and the consumer will almost always choose the least expensive overall product of equal quality.

In this case oil companies and consumers stay focused on gasoline from which a larger portion each year comes from the Middle East.

The EPA decided to mandate Catalytic converters and emission control devices after 10 people dropped dead in california in the 60's from inhaling exaust fumes.  Also the switch to unleaded gasoline made it so you and I don't have brain damage.  If it was left to the "free market" everyone would have chosen to use leaded gas because it had a higher octane, and their cars required it.  Buying octane boosters was very expensive and nobody wanted to do that, except the government decided.  But in the end it was the best decision.  

So like I said, only when it deals with national security, or the environment we live in.

So do I think in this situation it is the responsibility of the US government to decide?  Yes.

Do I think they're doing a good job at it?  No.

.

Answer 7

govt if not we would still be using leaded gas

Answer 8

This is a two edged sword.

If you leave it up to just the government

you may find yourself using fuels you don't approve of.

If you leave it up to just the consumers

there may not be enough guidelines

to help the environment and the low income families.

What we need to do is encourage the government

to take a more active part in controlling emissions

to reduce the release of poisons into the air.

At the same time we need the governent to ignore

the oil company lobbyists and

more actively persue alternative fuel sources.

the oil companies interest's are not for the government

or the people or the planet.

Their interest is to line their pockets with gold.

If the government put higher taxes on gas engines

than on electric engines, hydrogen engines, and

other fuel type engines we have not heard of

then we will be able to help the environment.

If the government give tax breaks

to the alternitive fuel engine makers

even better.

Then you can make choices

that benefit yourself and the earth the most.

Answer 9

1. No car  maker will change from gasoline unless another

    fuel is readily avalable.

2. No energy co. is going to make a new fuel if there isn't a

    car to use it.

3. A governments job is to do those things that one cannot

    do individualy.  It makes sense for government to point

     to the best solution and guide us to it.

Answer 10

Let the private sector decide.

Big Government will s***w it up!